Talk:People's Liberation Army
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the People's Liberation Army article.|
|WikiProject China||(Rated C-class, Top-importance)|
|WikiProject Mass surveillance|
|A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day... section on August 1, 2005.|
- 1 Cyberwarfare unit
- 2 potential WSJ resource, regarding Indian Ocean, Seychelles, Sino-American relations
- 3 File:J-10a zhas.png Nominated for speedy Deletion
- 4 What do the numbers mean?
- 5 At what level will the joint operational command system operate?
- 6 Links
- 7 Article is named wrong
- 8 Numbers don't seem to add up
- From Talk:Computer insecurity, also consider China Singled Out for Cyberspying; U.S. Intelligence Report Labels Chinese 'Most Active' in Economic Espionage; Russia Also Named; see Blue Army (not Blue Team (U.S. politics)) in November 4th, 2011 WSJ by Siobhan Gorman. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 07:26, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
potential WSJ resource, regarding Indian Ocean, Seychelles, Sino-American relations
- Chinese Military Considers New Indian Ocean Presence by JEREMY PAGE in Beijing and TOM WRIGHT in New Delhi 14.December.2011 ("from where the U.S. operates surveillance drones")
File:J-10a zhas.png Nominated for speedy Deletion
|An image used in this article, File:J-10a zhas.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:J-10a zhas.png)
What do the numbers mean?
It is unclear to me what the terms used in the side box mean. Can anyone clarify?
- How can there be 6 million Deployed Personnel and yet only 2.3 million Active Personal?
- Are the numbers for Available for Service snd Fit for Service a calculation of the number of people who have ever served in the armed forces (i.e. all people who have been conscripted)?
- Why are both the numbers for Available for Service snd Fit for Service not simply the total number of able bodied men and women between the ages of x and x ?
In my opinion the numbers for Available for Service snd Fit for Service should be deleted if they correspond only to a concept of military training and conscription and not to military establishment. Figures like these are not given for other Western countries eg USA.
LookingGlass (talk) 09:08, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
At what level will the joint operational command system operate?
I haven't been able to figure out at which level the new command structure will interact with the CMC. Is it a "joint chiefs" or a system of unified regional commanders? Hcobb (talk) 11:04, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Article is named wrong
The correct full name is "Chinese People's Liberation Army." Even the characters given in the opening line: 中国人民解放军 confirm this, as the first three 中国人 mean "Chinese People." Here are three high quality sources:
China Military Online - About Us
"China Military Online is now the only authoritative media of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to release military news and comprehensive military-related information on the Internet."
The Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA)
U.S. Army War College, Strategic Studies Institute
People's Daily Online
The Chinese People's Liberation Army
This is my first time here, so I hope a regular editor will at least note the full name in bold in the opening sentence. You don't have to rename the entire article, though that would be most accurate. 5Q5 (talk) 15:22, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Numbers don't seem to add up
Under the heading "PLA ground force" the article states:
"The PLA deploys the world's largest ground force, currently totaling some 1.7 million personnel, or about 70 percent of the PLA's total manpower (3.4 million)."
However, 1.7 million is not 70 percent of 3.4 million... so it is unclear what is being expressed here.
In the paragraph above that one, the article mentions "its current strength of 2.28 million personnel". It's unclear if "personnel" means the same thing as "total manpower" but these numbers (2.28 million and 3.4 million) also seem to disagree.